Carbon Limited VS Carbon Balanced - Ugly Stage

[sixty_reefer]

N2 is present in substantial quantities but does not provide N to any algae.

Correct although some types phytoplankton can use it as N. But not algae (directly)
Would you say that all the other ones don’t feed algae and coral? Directly and indirectly?

Edit:
Also not really sure on why you bringing it up as N2 can’t be used by algae or coral directly, to my knowledge just some types of phytoplankton can use it, if they were to be present, then N2 would become a indirect way to feed the algae as ammonia would be one of the byproducts from the nitrogen fixation by certain Cyanobacteria species.
Therefore not a nutrient for the specific organisms in question, if we we’re talking about Cyanobacteria then it would fall under the classification of nutrient, with the ability to feed other organism indirectly.
It will fall in the category of Non-nitrate nitrogen compounds, just not sure how relevant it is for this conversation.

 

[BeanAnimal]

...Also not really sure on why you bringing it up as N2 can’t be used by algae or coral directly,

Randy was kindly pointing out yet another reason why “non-nitrate nitrogen” fails for the purpose it was coined. It is a ridiculous term.

Nitrogen fixation by certain Cyanobacteria is entirely off-topic. As for the rest of your post and your “knowledge”—please put Google down before you break something. This is getting ridiculous.

 

[sixty_reefer]

Randy was kindly pointing out yet another reason why “non-nitrate nitrogen” fails for the purpose it was coined. It is a ridiculous term.

Nitrogen fixation by certain Cyanobacteria is entirely off-topic. As for the rest of your post and your “knowledge”—please put Google down before you break something. This is getting ridiculous.

I believe that he was pointing out that algae cannot use N2 directly.
I agreed and just added that in the presence of certain types of phytoplankton N2 could potentially become indirectly a biological pathway to fuel algae growth.
I may also add that Cyanobacteria N2 fixation is not a primarily process as it requires expending energy similar to why algae will prefer ammonia to Nitrate.

If you had to google that one is absolutely fine, at least you taking some interest in some of the biological pathways that happen in reef aquaria.
Particular organic nutrients are also Non-nitrate nitrogen compounds that don’t feed algae directly. It’s an indirect pathway as a result of decomposition.

In this thread I’m experimenting with biological pathways that can happen in reef aquaria that are usually limited by organic carbon.
Some of those pathways could be as simple as single cell zooplankton that preys on the increased bacteria.

Some of those biologic pathways also include microscopic pods, that can prey on the vast numbers of bacteria and single cell zooplankton (Protozoa)

Another aspects I intend to observe is how this increase in bacteria will affect the rock scape and coral that is believed to feed on large amounts of bacteria to be able to sustain energy. Such as the baby dendronephthya that is on the small rock.

 

[CHSUB]

Are you sure it’s dendronephthy? If it is you should change the entire scope of this thread to keep it alive and growing.

 

[sixty_reefer]

Are you sure it’s dendronephthy?

no, it is difficult at this time for me to differentiate between scleronephthya and dendronephthya.
The vibrant colours indicate one of the two.

If it is you should change the entire scope of this thread to keep it alive and growing.

How so? A environment with multiple bacterial and zooplankton pathways should increase their survival.

 

[CHSUB]

The term “non-nitrate nitrogen compounds” might sound like a “good word” to you, but as I already said, it is broad and ambiguous and only serves to confuse matters. It feels more like a forced attempt at sounding scientific and informed -- and fitting to the analogy -- an excuse to bring in more important sounding but irrelevant terms such as "urea".



You are back to gross oversimplifications of complex relationships. Nitrogen in all its forms can fuel growth. So again, what is the mechanism to qualify, quantify and control these compounds?

Are you going to move beyond vague terminology and deflections and start defining what you’re actually testing and observing, or just keep digging a deeper hole?

I like his term, “non-nitrate nitrogen compounds”…. It reminds me of mirepoix, a term used in cookery that explains carrots, onions, and celery prep; for use in a specific way and for an exact purpose. Imo, the hobby has recently focused to much on no3 when in reality nitrogen is in usable abundance in a reef environment. I would add “usable” and make it “usable non-nitrate nitrogen compounds” for the win.

 

[CHSUB]

How so? A environment with multiple bacterial and zooplankton pathways should increase their survival.

Interesting if you can keep it alive, and the exact reason why?

 

[sixty_reefer]

I like his term, “non-nitrate nitrogen compounds”…. It reminds me of mirepoix, a term used in cookery that explains carrots, onions, and celery prep; for use in a specific way and for an exact purpose. Imo, the hobby has recently focused to much on no3 when in reality nitrogen is in usable abundance in a reef environment. I would add “usable” and make it “usable non-nitrate nitrogen compounds” for the win.

I like how complete it makes

 

[sixty_reefer]

Interesting if you can keep it alive, and the exact reason why?

Nitrogen assimilation (anabolism) by bacteria

@taricha, @Dan_P How could I identify the above? I’ve tried a few things in the past and they really haven’t worked out well although this time around is starting to look that it may be a strong evidence of the existence of anabolism in a aquarium filtration if presented with different types...

www.reef2reef.com

I’m playing with a different type of organic carbon that may promote anabolism. The result it’s been what I can only describe it as a floc.
Have ever heard of biofloc systems in culturing fish and shrimp?
I’m doing the same with the adaptation to sustain a reef environment, this translates to having detectable Nitrates and phosphate. The reason I say this is mainly as In biofloc culture systems they don’t really need to be detectable as they don’t keep photosynthetic organisms in their tanks.
The floc consists of pelagic bacteria, single cell zooplankton and rotifers, some copepods can only be seen under the microscope (image below).

Some of the pelagic Protozoa under the microscope




This much biodiversity being established before lights were added should in theory diminish the ugly stage by having several biological pathways competing for “usable” Non-nitrate nitrogen compounds in the system.

I’ve had a short success in keeping a crinoid fed with this method, but lost it to a parameter shoc wile adding silica. I learned that in the worst way, that crinoids are very sensitive to any parameter change, with minimal changes in the residual nitrate also affecting them.
Not all is lost as I still have a limb from that same crinoid regenerating a new mouth and body in the tank 19 days past the incident, most likely due to the abundance of several nutrient rich microscopic life.

 

[BeanAnimal]

I believe that he was pointing out that algae cannot use N2 directly.

The context being your failed terminology "non-nitrate nitrogen" not holding up. But like everything else here, instead of addressing the facts presented, you trying to take us down a new path. You even somebody that took the bait and is giving this silliness cover.

...If you had to google that one is absolutely fine...

Nice try to avoid directly talking to the criticism of what you are saying.

Please stop drifting and address the numerous criticisms and points that have been made.

 

[sixty_reefer]

The context being your failed terminology "non-nitrate nitrogen" not holding up. But like everything else here, instead of addressing the facts presented, you trying to take us down a new path. You even somebody that took the bait and is giving this silliness cover.


Nice try to avoid directly talking to the criticism of what you are saying.

Please stop drifting and address the numerous criticisms and points that have been made.

Your interaction is a little repetitive and with no actual question or value. Try and formulate it as a question and if I know the answer I will try and answer to the best of my abilities.

 

[sixty_reefer]

We left off with "non-nitrate nitrate" and the problems with the term, as well as your glossing over of the complex interactions in these systems that negate the logic that you are trying to promote and apply.

Obviously the problem starts with you, not understanding the words.

“Non-nitrate nitrate” has no use, if you referring to non-nitrate nitrogen. then the implementation is correct, if used in conjunction with the word nutrient.
If we use the word non-nitrate nitrogen as nutrients to fuel algae, for example.
You can only apply the forms of non-nitrate nitrogen that are actually used by the algae.
If some of those nutrients within that group are not used by algae, then they’re not nutrients for algae.
They still nutrient for other organisms, just not for algae.

In addition you have direct and indirect usage of those nutrients by the algae, as I explained to you before algae will not use particular organic nutrients directly, it will use them as a result of decomposition that produces other types of non-nitrate nitrogen that can be used by algae.

Did you understood that? Do you know what a nutrient is? if used in relation to a specific organism?
If you are as knowledgeable as you say you are, I shouldn’t really have to explain simple word meanings to you.

 

[CHSUB]

Mirepoix = “useable”non-nitrate nitrogen, both industry jargon. Maybe this helps?

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Can you list the chemicals that you mean by non nitrate nitrogen and those you do not mean?

Ammonia?
Urea?
Amino acids?
Proteins?
Dissolved organic nitrogen in general?
Particulate organic nitrogen in general?

 

[BeanAnimal]

Obviously the problem starts with you, not understanding the words.

“Non-nitrate nitrate” has no use, if you referring to non-nitrate nitrogen.

Again, another pure deflection based on a clear typo in a response—after I’ve typed it exactly as you coined it numerous times in this thread.

Come on, Sixty, stop filibustering with smug nonsense. The issue isn’t a misunderstanding of “words”, it’s your insistence on using vague, redundant, or misleading terminology. "Non-nitrate nitrogen" adds absolutely nothing to this discussion except confusion and a means to avoid debating your misconception on the original topic.

Your explanation about decomposition and indirect usage is basic nutrient cycling and not some groundbreaking insight.

Stop the condescension and address the actual critiques, and present clear and measurable parameters for your claims. Otherwise, this is just more noise in yet another endless thread of deflections and irrelevant tangents.

 

[sixty_reefer]

Can you list the chemicals that you mean by non nitrate nitrogen and those you do not mean?

Ammonia?
Urea?
Amino acids?
Proteins?
Dissolved organic nitrogen in general?
Particulate organic nitrogen in general?

inorganic: ammonia and nitrite
Organic: any organic nutrients that will result in ammonia.

 

[sixty_reefer]

Again, another pure deflection based on a clear typo in a response—after I’ve typed it exactly as you coined it numerous times in this thread.

Come on, Sixty, stop filibustering with smug nonsense. The issue isn’t a misunderstanding of “words”, it’s your insistence on using vague, redundant, or misleading terminology. "Non-nitrate nitrogen" adds absolutely nothing to this discussion except confusion and a means to avoid debating your misconception on the original topic.

Your explanation about decomposition and indirect usage is basic nutrient cycling and not some groundbreaking insight.

Stop the condescension and address the actual critiques, and present clear and measurable parameters for your claims. Otherwise, this is just more noise in yet another endless thread of deflections and irrelevant tangents.

What is the claim? This is a hobby experiment for me to evaluate the possible effects of not limiting the organic carbon during cycling a new tank. If you don’t like the word carbon balanced. you can also use the word “carbon driven”, they both mean the same thing.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

inorganic: ammonia and nitrite
Organic: any organic nutrients that will result in ammonia.

That seems inconsistent with what you said it did:

Non-nitrate nitrogen compounds it’s what fuels algae growth and per effect the zooxanthellae in coral.

Organics are not known to be used by algae. If your assertion requires them to be converted to ammonia, then it seems a meaningless definition since all forms of N might be converted into ammonia (or not).

 

[sixty_reefer]

That seems inconsistent with what you said it did:

Non-nitrate nitrogen compounds it’s what fuels algae growth and per effect the zooxanthellae in coral.

Organics are not known to be used by algae. If your assertion requires them to be converted to ammonia, then it seems a meaningless definition since all forms of N might be converted into ammonia (or not).

The therm was first used here:

I still don't understand how you are going to selectively grow beneficial stuff and not perhaps "nuisance" stuff by adding a carbon source. If we extrapolate this to say Aiptasia, would you alter the tank conditions to such an extent that the Aiptasia died off?

It’s my understanding that this two implementations will mainly affect non-nitrate nitrogen converting those nutrients into diatoms, bacteria and zooplankton. Nitrate will still be available therefore some organisms will still be able to convert nitrate into usable forms at a expense of using extra energy for that process.
It should only affect organisms that thrive under non-nitrate nitrogen compounds. Therefore it wouldn’t make no difference to Aipatasia as it would still feed on bacteria, zooplankton and Nitrate.

A few words to describe several nutrients that may be reduced by a collection of organisms.

I believe if I was referring to a single organism then I would add the word nutrient to it.
If I didn’t add the word then it was probably a mistake and should be pointed out, I’ll happily correct it.

 

[sixty_reefer]

As for a thread update, this is how everything looking 7 days after lights on.​

Phosphate still 0.4 mg/l
Nitrate still 10 mg/l

There isn’t any observation of increased photosynthetic organisms at this point to report with the exception of a light brown film (mostly back wall) that the snail keep on top of.


additional observation on nutrients

In the last 7 days it appears that there has been more phosphate consumption than nitrate.
Nitrate and phosphate stayed constant but there has been a 0.07 mg/l of phosphate dosed in the last 7 days that haven’t shown up on todays testing.
This numbers are consistent with the results I’ve obtained before introducing LR.
​